Right to have a child
Printed From: OHbaby!
Category: General Chat
Forum Name: General Chat
Forum Description: For mums, dads, parents-to-be, grandparents, friends -- you name it! And you name the topic you want to chat about!
URL: https://www.ohbaby.co.nz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17642
Printed Date: 04 April 2026 at 2:46pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.05 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Right to have a child
Posted By: Jennz
Subject: Right to have a child
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 8:34am
|
I was just watching this programme about some single woman trying for babies and one particular story got me thinking. The woman in question has a severe disability which means she can only move her facial muscles (so she can chew and talk) and has limited use of her fingers/hands. Because of her illness her condition will deteriorate further over time and she also has a reduced life expectancy- she has been given another 7-10 years max. She requires 24 hour care.
Not particularly relevant IMO but she is also a lesbian, single and 40 years old. Now on the programme she is trying for a baby, through IVF- and from the shorts it looks like she falls pregnant. Her argument against her 'critics' was that everyone should have a right to have children if they want to and that able bodied parents could have accidents or die and their babies would be in the same position. She will not be able to hold or physically care for her baby and will not be able to 'raise' her child into adulthood. I must admit I was very confused by it all- at first I was outraged and thought how selfish of her, and then I thought of all these horrid 'able bodied' people who have kids upon kids and then abuse and kill them. In comparison she seemed articulate and loving, some kids grow up in far worse situations- but then I wonder at knowingly bringing a child into a situation where they will lose their only parent within 5-10 years. Anyway, I was just curious- what do you guys think? ------------- Jen, Charlotte 7 & Kate 3 
|
Replies:
Posted By: jack_&_charli
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 8:41am
|
i may get grilled for this........but i don't think she should have a baby for all the reasons that, to me, are obvious.
i'm guessing she has someone that's happy to take care of the baby and also 'adopt' it when she passes? ------------- http://www.alternatickers.com"> 
http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: james
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 8:45am
i,m with you on this one ------------- <a href="http://lilypie.com"><img src="http://b4.lilypie.com/nLJ5p13.png" alt="Lilypie 4th Birthday Ticker" border="0" /></a> |
jack_&_charli wrote:Posted By: Jennz
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 8:50am
I'm not sure to be honest- I actually had to stop watching it  Her sister was one of her full time carers so maybe she would be but when they were interviewing her she was talking about how she wasn't maternal- she thought her sister was the maternal one, and she didn't get why she wanted a child so much  ------------- Jen, Charlotte 7 & Kate 3
|
Posted By: Neeks
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 9:03am
|
Everyone no matter what their circumstances has the right to have a child.. yes sometimes it sucks because they are using it to recieve a benefit or are right into the whole drug scene. Even this lady at 40, with some kind of severe paralysis and a limited time to live deserves the right to have a child for her own happiness in what could be her final years of life.. As long as that child has somewhere to go once she passes on -------------  
|
Posted By: NeoshasMummy
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 9:13am
|
hmmm sorry im against it I dont really think that bringing a life into the world is the right idea of a "last dying wish". How about the effects on the child, not being able to play with mummy and then lose her at a tender age, I dont know I really dont think it is fair on the kid the only person getting something out of it is her and to me that is selfish.
I also am prepared to be grilled lol but we all have an opinion right  ------------- https://secure.fertilityfriend.com/home/30c4ec/" rel="nofollow">  Mrs Te Kani ❤️ Neosha 26/5/2007 |
Posted By: Jennz
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 9:20am
|
I guess its the right of the parent to have a child vs the right of the child to have a 'parent', in a normal sense of the word. I guess I see it that as an adult she has a choice where as by bringing a child into the world that child doesn't have a choice. I feel she should be putting her childs best interests before her own. ------------- Jen, Charlotte 7 & Kate 3
|
Posted By: .Mel
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 9:21am
|
I don't agree with it at all. ------------- Mr Mellow (16) Miss Attitude (8) Destructa Kid (3) 
|
Posted By: MummyFreckle
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 9:22am
|
I might get grilled for this too...but here is my 2 cents worth. I think that it sounds incredibly selfish and unfair on the child. I think that children have rights too...the right to grow up with a parent. Obviously there are times when parents are tragically taken from their children or circumstances beyond anyones control, but to have a child that you cant care for (in any capacity except mental) seems just wrong to me. ------------- http://lilypie.com">  http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: SMoody
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 9:23am
|
This is a difficult one. I cant judge her for her decision but I can only say what I would have done in teh same decision. And there would be no way I would actively try to bring a child into this world then. It will actually kill me more to know I wanted a child, bring it into the world and I cant hold it. I cant wipe away their tears when they fall. I cant be there for them too much longer in the future and I rely on other people to take care of this baby I brought into the world. I rather have the yearning to be a mother then, than to be a mother and not able to take care of my child at all. ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: emz
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 9:27am
Couldn't have said it better myself. I think it's incredibly selfish as if she's not realising how hard this child's life is going to be not only when she dies, but also in those last few years when she's deteriorating. Why would you want to but such an innocent little being through that? 
|
Posted By: my4beauties
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 9:35am
|
I feel for this woman, and can see her point, but I think the effects of having a child with it's parent in this position, and then having her pass away and the child is still young is not fair and I don't agree with that.
In this case I would say that you need to think of the child first, not her desire to bear a child. She only has a few years left and therefore she knows she won't get to see the child grow up, I think it's really selfish. Is her condition hereditary, did the programme say? ------------- My babies: R (9),G (7), J (5) http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: mummy_becks
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 9:37am
|
I think it is wrong, it is a bit like that woman who was in her 60's (single as well) and was trying to have a baby with an egg and sperm doner - I am so glad she didn't get to have a baby. ------------- I was a puree feeder, forward facing, cot sleeping, pram pushing kind of Mum... and my kids survived! |
Posted By: MummyFreckle
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 9:50am
|
I dont know if it is the same Becks, even if you are in your 60s trying to have a baby - the difference in this case would be the ability to hold, care for, play with the child. In your 60s you could still do that. There is also a possiblity that you could be around for 30 odd years....who knows. O has great grandmothers who are both in their 70s who get down on the floor and play with him. This woman would never be able to do that. I agree that they are both selfish acts, but think they are quite different. PS - I know a woman (through a friend of a friend) who became a "mum" at 67, when her daughter (who was a single mum) tragically died leaving her with 2 kids under 5. She is a great "mum" / Nana to those kids, and doesnt let her age stop her - in fact her maturity and experience helps a lot!
------------- http://lilypie.com"> http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: fattartsrock
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 11:59am
|
I'm gonna get flamed,. but what the hell...
I do not beleive it is every womans God given right to have a baby. Macsyna King, anybody???? I saw a thing on 60 mins last night about women in their thirties, successful, finaincially independant but single going through IVF, and that really got me thinking. On the one hand, these women are supporting themselves, no government handouts and are chooseing to have these babies, not just dumb luck oppsy babies. They can afford to have them, and have thought long and hard about it. On the other, there ae examples of why there needs to be some kind of "restriction" in place, like inthe example of Jennz. To me, that is selfish and no thought at all to that childs future. I also get REALLY REALLY REALLY angry when people who can't afford to keep having children do so, for whatever reasons, I know love will get you through, supposedly, but I came from a very poor household, and JMHO, its not love that gets you through, its the good will and charity of others as well as the government. And then there is people like Macsyna king. Keep having babies, and won't look after them, not able to be a parent in any way shape or form. I'm not saying that babies are the domain of the wealthy, couples or educated, I just think that people need to give more thought to the CHILD and not their own needs. Flame away. PS not pointed at anyone on this board at all. either. ------------- The Honest Un PC Parent of 2, usually stuck in the naughty corner! :P |
Posted By: Jay_R
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 12:18pm
|
I completely agree with you Annie.
James Whakaruru, Lillybing, Nia Glassie. All innocent victims of parents who did not have the right to have children. Ok, so this woman wouldn't be able to bash her baby up. But neither will she be able to cuddle them. Or pick them up. Or give them any kind of love other than words. And that is child abuse isn't it? |
Posted By: almostthere
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 12:21pm
|
Its funny how it takes just one person to go against the grain to bring more out of the woodwork huh..
Nope, I dont think that everyone has a god given RIGHT to have a child. TO say this in itself seems to come across as something pretty selfish and shows that you still cannot thing of anyone but yourself. What about the child? What about thier god given rights? Rights to have parents to love them, cherish them, show them affection. They have a right to feel safe and nurtured. Sorry, but any woman who says it's my right gets the thumbs down from me. But then, Who cares about what i say? ------------- http://www.fertilityfriend.com/home/2128f6"> 
http://www.fertilityfriend.com/home/2128f6 - chart |
Posted By: caitlynsmygirl
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 12:49pm
ugh.....That woman!(Macsyna King i mean) It is not anybodies RIGHT to have a child, it is a priviledge and a gift ,BUT it is the right of the CHILD to expect to be well cared for , and loved and looked after. And it just doesnt sound like this woman in question will be able to do so,and im not talking about the fact she can t hold her child, since when is love restricted to touch? but the fact she is bringing a child into the world when she knows she is going to die. My friend died after her baby was born (sorry,im sure i mention it way too much) it was sudden and unexpected and noone had any idea it was going to happen (it was a blood clot) if she had known her fate, i know there would have been no way she would have had a baby. At least her baby was too young to really know her mum, what if this lady dies when her child is say 2 , or 5 or even 1? as a mum my greatest fear (apart from my child going before me ) is leaving my baby , I don't want to leave her until SHE has grandchildren of her own ,because i know that i am my daughters world, im her mother and i vowed to protect her and be there for her for as long as i am able, the other lady isn't giving her child even the right to expect that. Of course one could say "walk in someones shoes" and i guess i should,but thats just my honest, humble opinion |
Posted By: Maya
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 12:57pm
|
I agree with everything Annie said (as I quietly go into hiding - not sure we can actually afford this baby! ) I don't neccessarily subscribe to the theory that kids need two parents to thrive, I think one good, committed parent is far better than two shonky ones, so I don't see the harm in single women undergoing IVF if they can afford to pay for it, but when it comes to those who keep getting pregnant with kids they don't want/afford, then I think there's a strong case for mandatory sterilisation... (ducks again!)
As for the original issue, I agree with Jennz - the right of the child to have a parent IMO outweighs the right of a person to have a child. -------------  Maya Grace (28/02/03)
 (02/01/06)
The Gremlins:Sienna Marie & Mercedes Kailah (14/10/06)
Lil miss:Chiara Louise Chloe (09/07/08)
Her ladyship:Rosalia Sophie Anais (18/06/12)
|
Posted By: Peanut
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 1:45pm
|
Maya - funny you should mention sterilisation - I get so worked up about people having babies that are all in some form of care - 3 strikes and you should be out of the game.
I have to agree with most of you. Its extremely unfair to the child to come into a world where the centre of your universe is going to be gone in 7 - 10 years. DH and I had a very big debate last night after watching the 60 minutes show. He completely disagrees with the IVF babies for single woman - his argument was purely based on the fact that he thought they were career obssessed and should have thought about kids earlier! -------------  
|
Posted By: Peace
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 2:15pm
|
My friends mother was diagnosed with cancer 3 months into being pregnant. She was encourage to end the pregnancy to save her own life.
She kept the pregnancy, had the baby and if I remember rightly died within the first year of her DS being born which was sad. She had set it up for her DS to be adopted by a friend, as far as I know my friend visits his half brother and sends him stuff from where he is. I personally think that there is a level of courageousness in the want for a child that you can't keep, selfish as it unquestionably is it, I agree that it is human nature to desire more for yourself albeit however misguided it is. I sure hope that the chick on TV can get some enjoyment from being a Mum and that her support crew gives her the support and love to her child if she succeeds. ------------- DD1 May 2006 DD2 March 2011 DD3 August 2012 |
Posted By: Snickerdoodle
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 2:55pm
|
I agree with everything said on here.
Peace, that's a sad situation. I can completely understand her desire to keep the pregnancy. She was already pregnant so the attachment was already there. But to know BEFORE you're even going through the process of getting pregnant that you're going to die in a handful of years...that's a whole different kettle of fish. My view is that this child (if she gets pregnant and has the baby she so desires), is going to have a loving Mum and LOTS of other people who love it. But how can this lady actually BE a Mum? IYKNWIM? She can look at the baby, talk to the baby, but as it's been said already, she can't cuddle the baby, pick it up, keep it out of harm's way, wipe it's tears, play on the floor... you know, all the things we do day to day to nurture and entertain our kiddies to help them thrive. Someone else is going to be doing that.... so no matter what, this child WILL be loved... but the contact with it's actualy Mum will be so minimal it won't feel connected.. IMO. I hope that makes sense. Good luck to her.... such a sad, heartbreaking story. ------------- 
http://lilypie.com">  
|
Posted By: Bubnumber2
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 2:55pm
|
I don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, it does strike me as selfish and I wonder whether she has REALLY considered the effect it will have on a young child, one as young as 5 even. On the other hand, how do you judge?
I'm not her, I don't understand her feelings about having a baby or about her situation. Would depend on the support the child will receive also, some children might resent that their parent knew they would be leaving them and still chose to have them...others might be able to cherish the fact that their parent loved them, wanted them so badly and be happy they were given the chance to live. Personally, I think the way the child will feel about it later on depends on how the people caring for her later project the mothers choice to them. There are other situations that are similar (though not the same), and equally controversial. Example, a mother with a medical condition that has meant that she has life restrictions, as well as substantial pain and need for serious surgery. There is a high chance that any possible children may be born with the same condition, and be facing years of painful surgery etc. Should she have kids? I read something about a woman in that kind of situation, she had one child who did happen to be born healthy and 'normal', so they decided to have another. The second was born with the same condition as the mother. I'm less inclined to agree with this kind of thing, because risking putting a small child through pain doesn't seem to sit well with me. But then I haven't been in this situation, my opinion is based on no experience, so what do I know? ------------- http://www.bump-and-beyond.com/"> 
|
Posted By: kebakat
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 3:45pm
|
I have kind of skimmed through some of the responses but not all..
I had a friend where she knew she was very ill and she got pregnant (by accident). Once she found out about it she debated whether or not to end it. In the end she couldn't and wouldn't. She had to go off her meds during her pregnancy for the babys sake which essentially ended her life. She only lived until her daughter was 4 months old. And in that time after her daughter was born she couldn't do much with her because she was so sick and weak. She knew full well what stopping her meds would mean for her and do I think she should have done otherwise. Hell no. If this lady has someone to take care of the child in the ways that she can't I'm sorry but how is that different from adoption or surrogacy except that she can watch that child grow? If she's got the support there, then that's awesome.. that child will likely grow up in a very loving environment even if it is a bit different to the norm. |
Posted By: almostthere
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 4:34pm
|
I guess what it boils down to is whether she actually has the support there right?
------------- http://www.fertilityfriend.com/home/2128f6">
http://www.fertilityfriend.com/home/2128f6 - chart |
Posted By: SuperDaddy
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 5:59pm
|
I personally think that she is being selfish .. and having a child is not everyones right....its a gift and people who cant conceive will attest to that.
-------------  
 
|
Posted By: WRXnKids
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 8:43pm
|
Ive only skimmed most of this but i watched this when i was pregnant. Yes she does get pregnant and she has the baby. The birth (c-section because of her disability)almost kills her because of health complications which she had been told would be an issue but they both come out of it fine. There is a full time carer that looks after the baby and she doesnt really spend as much time with the baby as i would have thought she would want to consider her great desire to have the baby. I think in her case she was very selfish but she has planned ahead and the childs life will be well provided for. I think her argument was that there are babies born into the world that arent loved at all and although she doesnt know how long she will be around her child will be very loved and know it. Im of 2 minds about this one i do think anyone who will give a child the love it deserves should be able to have a baby but I think think the poor child and what it will have to deal with -------------   
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 8:57pm
|
Normally I would agree.
However I have been following the 'Child of our Time' series since it started, and there is a mum on there who was born without arms and legs, and her son Parys and she's a great and capable mother. Should having a disability mean you can't have children? |
Posted By: Jennz
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 9:03pm
|
Ah thanks for letting me know how it ends! ------------- Jen, Charlotte 7 & Kate 3
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 9:06pm
| I'm waiting for someone to make a doco about these kids in 20 years time and ask them what it was like being raised by a older/gay/disabled parent. |
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 9:14pm
|
I think the lady fleury is talking about isn't the same one. If its the same one I know of she was on the jeremy kyle show and got pregnant the old fashion having sex way. She is also capable even though she doesn't have arms and legs and talked about how she would change his nappies with her mouth. Could be completely and totally wrong though but the son being called Parys rang a bell.
I think this is a really hard one to call, I would actually be a little concerned about her embarking on this at her age with those increased risks on top of all the other problems. What will happen if the child is special needs but already has a special needs mum. I can understand her desire to have a children but that doesn't give her the right. I think that the child really does need to be thought about first, but then again if you go into the future and ask the child if they wish they had never been born they would mostly likely say no. ------------- 
 
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 9:20pm
I don't think she is the same person, but it did make me think about the question of being a disabled mother. In this case I think there are too many additional factors. I've of the view that if you can't have children for whatever reason then you don't have them. |
Posted By: Jennz
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 9:21pm
|
Yeah I know the child of our time Mum- she is very different. She is disabled but as far as I know her life expectancy isn't reduced and she was able to physically care for Parys alot more so than the other Mum would have been able to. She was somewhat mobile and could use her feet as well- shes the one with the statue in Trafalgar Square.
I think the one wrxchick was talking about is the same though- they were saying she would have to have a C section and there would likely be complications with the pregnancy and/or birth that could result in her or the baby or both of them dying as well. Interesting to see the range of opinions- it was something I felt really strongly about, hence why I had to stop watching, but I wasn't sure how other people felt. ------------- Jen, Charlotte 7 & Kate 3
|
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 9:27pm
|
Yeah thats the one with the statue in trafalgar square, I found her story really awe inspiring, but it sounds like a completely different kettle of fish to the one you started the thread about. -------------
|
Posted By: Bizzy
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 9:39pm
i think the child of an abuser would disagree with that. I havent read the replies yet, will go back and do that. i read this this morning but had to go out before i could post. When i first read this i was reminded of a story in a parenting mag (think it was treasures) where a man was talking about how fab his wife was becasue even tho she had a terminal illness she wanted kids so desperately and he was commending her for that. She went and got pregnant and had twin girls, and died when they were about four years old. I was horrified when i read this and couldnt believe how selfish she was. I have heard lots of people - women especially - who have had a hard time coping with not having a mother and i dont know why you would choose to abandon your kids. ------------- http://www.myfitnesspal.com/weight-loss-ticker"> 
|
Posted By: AliaDawn
Date Posted: 28 May 2008 at 8:32am
At least those girls had one parent. I see nothing wrong with that honestly... especially if it was what the father/husband truly wanted. A whole different story for the single terminally ill etc to have a kid I think... -------------  
 
|
Posted By: ElfsMum
Date Posted: 28 May 2008 at 9:31am
i think she accidently got pregnant too...?i have a disabled brother....physically only though..and doe a lot of work with disabled people..and personally i think the same as Emma and SD.. having a child is a gift and a selfless act and part of that is ensuring the child has parent or parents around to care for it.. it's putting the child through unnecessary pain due to your own wants i think.. i also think some people dont understand the reality of having a child till they have one ...on a side note the way people treat my brother is unbelievable sometimes:( ------------- Mum to two amazing boys! |
Posted By: ElfsMum
Date Posted: 28 May 2008 at 9:32am
|
and the child of our time lady has commented many times how she is getting worse and isnt sure what will happen for his care if she gets much worse:( ------------- Mum to two amazing boys! |
Posted By: almostthere
Date Posted: 28 May 2008 at 10:04am
|
Yea, i dont thing that lady with the disability having a child and the lady who is dying are in the same boat. Manily because the one who is dying had the child knowing full well that her life expectancy was only a few years whereas the other has the ability to care for the child mostly and could live to be older than any of us! ------------- http://www.fertilityfriend.com/home/2128f6">
http://www.fertilityfriend.com/home/2128f6 - chart |
Posted By: kebakat
Date Posted: 28 May 2008 at 12:10pm
My friend did exactly this but her daughter is such an awesome kid. She's extremely happy and fun. Lots of kids grow up without one or both parents. I would think that people who know they aren't going to have a long life and want to have children aren't stupid and will know that they will need to come up with a plan of what will happen when they are gone which is exactly what my friend did. Her daughter is raised by her sister and her partner and like I said her daughter is really happy, loved and cared for. Not many people know how long they are going to live.. I for example could die tomorrow or in 60 years time. I still have to think about what will happen to Daniel when I'm gone and he's not old enough to fend for himself type thing and its the same with those who do have some idea of how long their life will be except they really need to make more concrete plans. Plenty of kids out there grow up without both biological parents, or just one and the great majority are well rounded people. Single parents do this all the time. |
Posted By: almostthere
Date Posted: 28 May 2008 at 12:44pm
|
Yea but if you KNOW that you are going to die in a year? ------------- http://www.fertilityfriend.com/home/2128f6">
http://www.fertilityfriend.com/home/2128f6 - chart |
Posted By: Bizzy
Date Posted: 28 May 2008 at 1:01pm
i dont know how many time i have heard people say, in real life and on boards, that they wished that their mother had been around to see their grandkids and to help them and they hadnt realised how much they would want them at the pont in their lives when they too became parents. ... so maybe we should ask the kids when they are older and see what they say then. ------------- http://www.myfitnesspal.com/weight-loss-ticker">
|
Posted By: Maya
Date Posted: 28 May 2008 at 1:04pm
|
Slightly OT but when Maya was at daycare, the mother of two of the boys there passed away from cancer, it was absolutely heartbreaking, but it also made me so terrifyingly aware of my own mortality, I couldn't bear the thought of leaving Maya, it really upset me for a long time afterwards. ------------- Maya Grace (28/02/03)
(02/01/06)
The Gremlins:Sienna Marie & Mercedes Kailah (14/10/06)
Lil miss:Chiara Louise Chloe (09/07/08)
Her ladyship:Rosalia Sophie Anais (18/06/12)
|
Posted By: scarecrowfarm
Date Posted: 28 May 2008 at 1:17pm
|
I can understand her desire for a child, I truely can. I also recognise that we don't know when our life is going to end. But to knowingly have a baby when you know that you are probably not going to be alive when that child goes to school, just strikes me as an incredibly selfish thing to do. Kiddies of that age need their parents.
At that age kids are still tied to their mum's apron strings. I would have been devastated if my mum had died at that age and I don't believe it would be any easier knowing that she was going to die. ------------- Robyn www.scarecrowfarm.co.nz |
Posted By: almostthere
Date Posted: 28 May 2008 at 1:24pm
|
Yea, see my mother died when i was 9 <how she died was her choice but thats a different story> and I can honestly say I wish I had her here now.
In a time when i am planning my own family knowing full well that i wont have the support from her, knowing that i cant ask her about her births and her pregnancies. Knowing that my childen will be missing one of thier granparents... Its not nice! Also knowing that she CHOSE to die that way she did kinda makes me feel that those who have concieve children, that is to say PLAN to concieve knowing full well that they only have a very limited time?>? Sorry, but its self centered and selfish. ------------- http://www.fertilityfriend.com/home/2128f6">
http://www.fertilityfriend.com/home/2128f6 - chart |